Spin? You're the one who keeps shifting your argument when your evidence fails to support your claim. No one, and certainly not I, has made conviction a prerequisite for anything. You claimed minors are prosecuted for disseminating pornographic images of themselves. I pointed out that all of your examples are cases where a second minor is targeted or is otherwise sent the images, which is not MH's situation. Then, you shift to examples of guys who lied about their age to porn companies. I point out that they/the minors were not prosecuted and therefore their cases don't support your claim that minors are prosecuted for general distribution of porn. Now, you twist the non-prosecution into the straw argument no one made -- that we're resting on a lack of convictions against the minors.
You are like a dog with a bone. You've made your arguments. I've made mine. Other readers can see them and decide which arguments are more tenable. Give it a rest.
